Even though we recognize much diversity in college education among Japanese Universities, every graduate receives the same degree : a Bachelor. I would like to pursue in this paper what the meaning of our Bachelor degree system is. I propose we should have a common understanding of the degree requirement, otherwise we may put the system in danger. How can we gain a common understanding of the degree system?

　 Japanese colleges are chartered by the Ministry of Education and Science based on the chartering regulations which were established by the Ministry itself. So we want to find a common basis for the degree requirement in the regulations. However, this is impossible, since there is no essential statement on degree requirements in them. We must look for the basis of degree requirements elsewhere.

　 For the purpose of finding the basis of the common requirements, first we examined the accreditation standard set by JUAA (Japan University Accreditation Association). We find the JUAA standard is mostly for professional education, which is traditional in Japan.

　 Then we analyzed a report written by the National Council on University Education, which is entitled, “Universities in the 21st Century.” The report proposes a new college education the so-called “GAKUSI KATEI” in Japanese. The idea of GAKUSI KATEI is a compromise idea between professional education and liberal arts education.

　 Lastly we studied AALE (The American Academy for Liberal Education) standard of liberal arts education. Through the study, we discovered a difference in character between the Japanese standard and the AALE standard. The Japanese standard is for knowledge based education while the AALE standard is for ability based education. This difference is crucial. We may find a basis of common degree requirements if we accept and apply an idea of standard for ability based education to our education system.

　 It is very important to take the integrated curriculum and common core into consideration in formulating an educational program with a view to awarding a bachelor’s degree. The purpose of this paper is to examine from the above two perspectives the structure of undergraduate curriculum, that is, the connection between liberal or general education and specialized education in Japan.

　 The re-analysis of existing investigation data collected in 1994 and 2001 on national universities and the result of an investigation conducted in 2003 lead to the following findings :

　 1. Curriculum requirements for liberal or general education vary from one discipline to another.

　 2. Elementary courses for specialized education and learning of study skills constitute the greater part of liberal or general education.

　 3. Organically integrating liberal or general education with specialized education means that the contents of liberal or general education are largely dominated by specialized education.

　 4. The concept and contents of liberal or general education have been interpreted in various ways since 1991 when the Standards for the Establishment of Universities were broadened. Accordingly, these trends have been intensified.　 Consequently, a demand for integrated curriculum based on specialized education is doing great harm to the commonality of undergraduate curriculum that should be intended to provide students with common learning.

　 In this essay, the author speculates on undergraduate education in Japan. As a preliminary, he sees the equivalent in the United States through his own observations and the remarks of a few academics, such as Arthur Levine and Mark Edmundson: the objective is not comparison, but reflection. Subsequent speculation on Japanese higher education is based on the author’s experience as an instructor in general education at one or two specialized institutions. Lastly he tries to pursue what is of intrinsic value in undergraduate teaching, liberal or specialized.

　 The aim of this paper is to examine the structure and function of undergraduate curricula in the U.S. from the perspective of comparison with Japan. To explore this aim, curricula implementation, its organization, historical trends, structural contradiction, and recent reform movements are analyzed, and a hypothetical model of comparison between the U.S. and Japan is offered.

　 The basic organization of current undergraduate curricula in the U.S. was established around the beginning of the 20th century when specialized education became a component and four year liberal education became two year general education. There has been a structural contradiction between these two elements. As specialized education has gradually occupied a strong position due to the establishment of academic departments, the general education curricula has become fragmented because of the lack of responsible organization. The idea or goal of undergraduate education, however, has borrowed from that of traditional liberal education which has been to cultivate the whole man. In another sense, general education has been indispensable to articulate between high schools and colleges. Therefore a stormy debate regarding the idea of undergraduate education has sometimes raged, and repetitive reforms have been made to make undergraduate, specifically general education curricula coherent or integrative.

　 After World War II, Japan introduced general education, modeled after that of the U.S. Although the regulation of general education was abolished in 1991, Japanese universities have still kept general education elements in their undergraduate education. Components of curricula both in the U.S. and in Japan look very similar. The curricula debate that general education should be kept and curricula reforms that make general education coherent seem to be similar.

　 There are, however, differences between them. What the U.S. has but Japan does not is the idea of liberal education to cultivate the whole person. On the contrary, what Japan has, but the U.S. does not have, is a faculty organization for general education. Another point is that Japan has, but the U.S. does not, centers for arranging general education curricula. Curricula reflect historical and social contexts outside universities.

　 The fundamental structure of a bachelor degree course (unergraduate honour course) in British higher education was shaped when the Honours Examination System was introduced in the early nineteenth century Oxford. In Oxford, after the first honour course in Literae Humaniores (Greats) established in 1802, mathematics (1807), natural sciences (1850), law and modern history (1850), theology (1870), jurisprudence (1872), modern history (1872), and oriental studies followed suit. This practice was also brought into the newly founded colleges and universities. Thus the pattern of three or four year’s study of a single subject, culminating in a series of three-hour written examinations and a published class list, became an established institution in many English universities during the twentieth century.

　 How is a bachelor degree course or programme constructed in the British higher education? What are its contents? How does a student proceed to an avenue to a bachelor degree? In this paper these questions are asked and clarified through the case study of Literae Humaniores, the first, defining and well-known honour course in Oxford at the time of 1892 when the prestige and popularity of the Greats was at its height. At the same time the meaning and the characteristic feature of an English liberal education will be sought after in the course of consideration.

　 Since the ‘Bologna Declaration’ in 1999 many actions have been taken to create a ‘European Higher Education Area (EHEA)’ by 2010, that would enable students to move across the borders more easily and to make European higher education more attractive and competitive internationally.

　 There is a broad consensus on the convergence of the national higher education system into two cycles with of undergraduates and graduates among the signatory nations in order to make the degree structure more readable and comparable. The first cycle lasts three or four years leading to Bachelor’s degree and the second one to a Master’s degree. Many doubted the possibility of convergence, because of the diversity of the first degree structures among signatory nations. But significant progress has been made by the nations, including France which introduced new legislation to accommodate the new structure.

　 In order to make the higher education system more transparent, efforts such as the ‘Dublin Descriptor’, the ‘Tuning Project’ and the ‘European Higher Education Qualifications Framework’, are now in progress. These define the qualifications in terms of learning outcomes and competences.

　 In Japan, while the government is rigorously driving toward deregulation and diversification of higher education institutions, discussion and consultation about the quality and competence of Bachelor’s degree is does not exist. We cannot create internationally competitive and recognizable Bachelor’s degree without an attempt to define the quality of the degree in terms of learning outcomes and competences.

　 Many British and Australian universities have been providing offshore programs through their branch campuses and/or collaboration with local organizations in Southeast and East Asian countries among others, and the magnitude of the provision is substantial. Do these universities exemplify the erosion of national sovereignty that some globalization theorists argue? Are the national education systems becoming unable to control the universities? This paper is aimed at analyzing offshore provision by these universities, and answering the above questions. It is an application of Andy Green’s research on globalization and national education systems to transnational providers of education, which were not covered by his research.

　 The results of the analysis, including the two case studies of the offshore campuses in Malaysia, those of the University of Nottingham from Britain and Monash University from Australia, suggest that the role of nation states is still large as they sustain their educational systems although transnational higher education presents a new challenge to both sending and receiving nations. Both nations are not abandoning their control measures to pursue policy objectives including quality assurance, but have been preparing renewed functions to respond to the present challenge brought about by strategic actions of transnational higher education institutions as new actors. The findings are compatible with Green’s research on other aspects of globalization. The reality of these universities engaged in transnational provision is a sort of ‘dual nationality’ rather than ‘supernationality’. Based on their strategic choice, the offshore campuses, as Malaysian institutions and corporations, adapt themselves to Malaysian legal frameworks and regulations in ensuring accredited status and running their businesses while they, as academic institutions, endeavor to ensure internal quality assurance mechanisms in place and maintain their characteristics and brand image of a British or Australian university.

　 The above analysis provides important lessons to Japan, which is changing its policy on transnational higher education supplied both from Japan and into Japan.

　 The purpose of this paper is to investigate the differences in the actual conditions for learning between five learning centers in rural China. In particular, the effect of learning resources and environment on the degree of learner satisfaction was analyzed. To understand the situation of Television and Radio University (Dendai), an analysis was done of the survey conducted from October, 2000 to November, 2001.

　 The study results indicated that learning resources are much more scarce in the learning centers in rural areas than they are in urban areas. Results also indicate wide discrepancies between each of the learning centers in the farming villages, and pointed to problems with the educational system’s management as a possible cause.

　 The introduction of new policies has brought about the quantitative expansion of the student class, but has not been effective in lessening the inequalities between the urban and rural areas. In terms of the state of learning, we can see very little change in the diversity of students.

　 Considering the scarcity of higher education opportunities, there remain high expectations for the learning centers. Recommendations are also made for policy reforms to improve the state of educational support in rural agricultural China.

　 The aim of this study is to examine the process of the institutionalization of Home Economics in Japan from a sociological perspective to clarify the characteristics of its academic development. To that end, the following three themes were established:

　 1. Realities of Home Economics students who went to Europe and America in the Meiji and Taisho eras and who became the driving force in the establishment of Home Economics in Japan.

　 2. Background of the foundation of faculties of Home Economics after World War 2.

　 3. Development of Home Economics centered on the Japan Society of Home Economics.

　 The study revealed that the institutional form of Home Economics is systemled, i.e., the system was created first, rather than being paradigm-led. Based on this, the characteristics of the development of Home Economics as follows can bestated.

　 1. The reason why Home Economics developed slower than other disciplines was due to the fact that we were unable to transplant the academic system from advanced foreign countries in the Meiji era. Therefore, 2., a specific professional group were unable to form until Home Economics was institutionalized by universities after World War 2. In addition, 3. To put it simply, it was other disciplines that had established the process of institutionalization in the Imperial University that were able to respond when Home Economics was preparing its education and research structure after the war. As such, 4. It could be said that Home Economics was able to prepare its academic system by transplanting similar disciplines via the Imperial University after the War.